Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
This guideline discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, which states:
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Other policies relevant to sourcing are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Los artículos deben basarse en fuentes publicadas confiables, independientes y con reputación de verificación de datos y precisión. Esto significa que publicamos sólo los análisis, puntos de vista y opiniones de autores confiables, y no los de wikipedistas que han leído e interpretado material de fuentes primarias por sí mismos. Los siguientes ejemplos cubren sólo algunos de los posibles tipos de fuentes confiables y problemas de confiabilidad de las fuentes, y no pretenden ser exhaustivos. El abastecimiento adecuado siempre depende del contexto; El sentido común y el criterio editorial son una parte indispensable del proceso.
Una fuente es de donde proviene el material. Por ejemplo, una fuente podría ser un libro o una página web. Una fuente puede ser confiable o no confiable para el material que debe respaldar. Algunas fuentes, como textos inéditos y la propia experiencia personal del editor, están prohibidas.
Cuando los editores hablan de fuentes que se citan en Wikipedia, es posible que se refieran a cualquiera de estos tres conceptos:
Cualquiera de los tres puede afectar la confiabilidad. Las fuentes confiables pueden ser materiales publicados con un proceso de publicación confiable, autores considerados autorizados en relación con el tema, o ambos. Estas calificaciones deben ser demostrables a otras personas.
Publicado significa, para los fines de Wikipedia, cualquier fuente que se haya puesto a disposición del público de alguna forma . El término se asocia más comúnmente con materiales de texto, ya sea en formato impreso tradicional o en línea; sin embargo, los materiales de audio, video y multimedia que hayan sido grabados y luego transmitidos, distribuidos o archivados por una parte acreditada también pueden cumplir con los criterios necesarios para ser considerados fuentes confiables. Al igual que el texto, los medios deben ser producidos por una fuente confiable y citarse adecuadamente. Además, debe existir una copia archivada del medio. Es conveniente, aunque no necesario, que la copia archivada sea accesible a través de Internet.
La confiabilidad de una fuente depende del contexto. Cada fuente debe sopesarse cuidadosamente para juzgar si es confiable para la declaración que se hace en el artículo de Wikipedia y si es una fuente apropiada para ese contenido. En general, cuanta más gente se dedique a comprobar hechos, analizar cuestiones jurídicas y escudriñar lo escrito, más fiable será la publicación. Las fuentes deben respaldar directamente la información tal como se presenta en el artículo de Wikipedia ( ).
La información proporcionada de paso por una fuente confiable o la información que no está relacionada con los temas principales de la publicación puede no ser confiable; Los editores deben citar fuentes centradas en el tema en cuestión siempre que sea posible. Por ejemplo, es probable que el sitio web de un editor sea confiable para la identidad del autor, la fecha de publicación, etc., pero no necesariamente para una evaluación crítica, artística o comercial de la obra ( ).
Especialmente en los campos científico y académico, las fuentes más antiguas pueden ser inexactas porque ha salido a la luz nueva información, se han propuesto nuevas teorías o se ha cambiado el vocabulario. En áreas como la política o la moda, las leyes o tendencias pueden hacer que afirmaciones más antiguas sean incorrectas. Asegúrese de verificar que las fuentes más antiguas no hayan sido reemplazadas, especialmente si es probable que se hayan producido nuevos descubrimientos o desarrollos en los últimos años. En particular, en medicina generalmente se prefieren las fuentes más nuevas .
A veces las fuentes son demasiado nuevas para usarlas, como las noticias de última hora (donde los informes posteriores podrían ser más precisos) y las fuentes primarias que pretenden desacreditar un consenso de larga data o introducir un nuevo descubrimiento (en cuyo caso, a la espera de estudios que intenten replicar el descubrimiento podría ser una buena idea, o revisiones que validen los métodos utilizados para realizar el descubrimiento).
Con respecto a los eventos históricos, los informes más antiguos (más cercanos al evento, pero no demasiado cercanos como para que sean propensos a los errores de las noticias de última hora) tienen menos probabilidades de tener errores introducidos por copias y resúmenes repetidos. Sin embargo, las fuentes secundarias y terciarias más nuevas pueden haber hecho un mejor trabajo al recopilar más informes de fuentes primarias y resolver conflictos, aplicar conocimientos modernos para explicar correctamente cosas que las fuentes más antiguas no podían explicar o permanecer libres de sesgos que pudieran afectar fuentes escritas mientras aún no existían. Los conflictos descritos todavía estaban activos o se sentían fuertemente.
Las fuentes de cualquier época pueden ser propensas al recienteismo , y esto debe equilibrarse mediante una edición cuidadosa.
How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of a topic as far as we can determine them.
Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.
News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it.
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact ().
Some websites function partly or entirely as aggregators, reprinting items from websites of news agencies, blogs, websites, or even Wikipedia itself. These may constitute a curated feed or an AI-generated feed. Examples include the main pages of MSN and Yahoo News. As with newspaper reprints, the original content creator is responsible for accuracy and reliability should be judged based on the original source. Direct links to the original source should be preferred over the aggregator's link.
Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services", inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available.
Rankings proposed by vendors (such as bestseller lists at Amazon) usually have at least one of the following problems:
For such reasons, such rankings are usually avoided as Wikipedia content.
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Las fuentes comunes de sesgo incluyen creencias políticas, financieras, religiosas, filosóficas o de otro tipo. Aunque una fuente puede estar sesgada, puede ser confiable en el contexto específico. Al tratar con una fuente potencialmente sesgada, los editores deben considerar si la fuente cumple con los requisitos normales para fuentes confiables, como control editorial, reputación de verificación de hechos y el nivel de independencia del tema que cubre la fuente. El sesgo puede hacer que la atribución en el texto sea apropiada, como en "La feminista Betty Friedan escribió que..."; "Según el economista marxista Harry Magdoff ..."; o "El candidato presidencial republicano conservador Barry Goldwater creía que...".
Las fuentes cuestionables son aquellas con mala reputación para verificar los hechos o sin supervisión editorial. Dichas fuentes incluyen sitios web y publicaciones que expresan opiniones ampliamente reconocidas como extremistas, de naturaleza promocional o que se basan en gran medida en rumores y opiniones personales. [9] Las fuentes cuestionables generalmente no son adecuadas para citar reclamos controvertidos sobre terceros, lo que incluye reclamos contra instituciones, personas vivas o muertas, así como entidades menos definidas. Los usos adecuados de una fuente cuestionable son muy limitados.
Tenga cuidado con las fuentes que parecen confiables pero que no tienen la reputación de verificación de datos y precisión que requiere esta guía. [10] El Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information podría tener reputación de comportamiento " depredador ", que incluye prácticas comerciales cuestionables y/o procesos de revisión por pares que generan preocupaciones sobre la confiabilidad de los artículos de su revista. [11] [12]
El contenido patrocinado es un anuncio pago que tiene el formato para parecerse a un artículo u otro contenido típico de ese medio. El contenido puede estar controlado directamente por el patrocinador, o el anunciante puede pagar a un autor para crear el contenido (por ejemplo, marketing de influencers ). Se pueden citar anuncios, pero no son independientes y deben tratarse como fuentes primarias y autoeditadas en los artículos. Las publicaciones confiables indican claramente los artículos patrocinados en la firma o con un descargo de responsabilidad en la parte superior del artículo. Las fuentes que no distinguen claramente los artículos escritos por el personal del contenido patrocinado también son cuestionables.
Symposia and supplements to academic journals are often (but far from always) unacceptable sources. They are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review, with no supervision of content by the parent journal.[13] Such articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal,[14] being essentially paid ads disguised as academic articles. Such supplements, and those that do not clearly declare their editorial policy and conflicts of interest, should not be cited.
Indications that an article was published in a supplement may be fairly subtle; for instance, a letter "S" added to a page number,[15] or "Suppl." in a reference.[16] However, note that merely being published in a supplement is not prima facie evidence of being published in a sponsored supplement. Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources, such as the Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series, Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements, Supplement to the London Gazette, or The Times Higher Education Supplement. A sponsored supplement also does not necessarily involve a COI; for instance, public health agencies may also sponsor supplements. However, groups that do have a COI may hide behind layers of front organizations with innocuous names, so the ultimate funding sources should always be ascertained.
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Never use self-published sources as independent sources about other living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
El contenido de sitios web cuyo contenido es en gran medida generado por los usuarios es generalmente inaceptable. Los sitios con contenido generado por el usuario incluyen sitios web personales, blogs personales y grupales (excluidos blogs de periódicos y revistas ), granjas de contenido , foros de Internet , sitios de redes sociales , sitios de fans , servicios de alojamiento de videos e imágenes , la mayoría de los wikis y otros sitios web creados en colaboración.
Ejemplos de fuentes inaceptables generadas por usuarios son Ancestry.com , Discogs , Facebook , Famous Birthdays , Fandom , Find a Grave , Goodreads , IMDb , Instagram , Know Your Meme , Reddit , Snapchat , TikTok , Tumblr , TV Tropes , Twitter , WhoSampled , y Wikipedia (autorreferenciada). Para cuentas oficiales de celebridades y organizaciones en las redes sociales, consulte la sección sobre fuentes autoeditadas a continuación.
Aunque los agregadores de reseñas (como Rotten Tomatoes y Metacritic ) pueden ser confiables al resumir a los expertos, las calificaciones y opiniones de sus usuarios no lo son.
En particular, un wikilink no es una fuente confiable.
Se podrán utilizar fuentes autoeditadas o cuestionables como fuentes de información sobre sí mismas , especialmente en artículos sobre ellas mismas, sin el requisito de que sean publicadas por expertos en la materia, siempre que se cumplan los siguientes criterios:
These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.
In recent years, machine learning (ML, AI) has become a common way to generate and publish material. It may not be known or detectable that ML was used. While ML generation in itself does not necessarily disqualify a source that is properly checked by the person using it, ML has a tendency to create or "hallucinate" imaginary information, "supported" by citations that look as if they are from respectable sources but do not exist. In one case, a lawyer used ChatGPT to generate and file a legal brief that he did not check; the judge upon reviewing the case stated, "six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations", although ChatGPT had assured the author that they were real and could "be found in reputable legal databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw".[17] Citations have been published to newspaper articles that do not exist, attributed to named reporters.[18] Such spurious material may be generated unintentionally by writers—reporters, scientists, medical researchers, lawyers, ...—using chatbots to help them to produce reports, or maliciously to generate "fake news".
Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.
Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.
Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact-checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE).
Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
When editing articles in which the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as {{primary source-inline}} and {{better source}}, or article templates, such as {{primary sources}} and {{refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern.
Ideal sources for biomedical information include general or systematic reviews in reliable, independent, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, independent, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.
Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known topic about which many peer-reviewed articles are written, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced to obscure texts that lack peer review. Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia.
In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer-reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.
The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.
Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.
Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source ().
A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion .
There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Using the subject as a self-published source.
The exception for statements ABOUTSELF is covered at Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves.
Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements. The On the Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook[19] contains several suggestions to avoid spreading unreliable and false information. These include: distrust anonymous sources, unconfirmed reports, and reports attributed to other news media; seek multiple independent sources which independently verify; seek verified eyewitness reports; and be wary of potential hoaxes. With mass shootings, remain skeptical of early reports of additional attackers, coordinated plans, and bomb threats.
When editing a current-event article, keep in mind the tendency towards recentism bias. Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources § Examples of news reports as primary sources.
The {{current}}, {{recent death}}, or another current-event-related template may be added to the top of articles related to a breaking-news event to alert readers that some information in the article may be inaccurate and to draw attention to the need to add improved sources as they become available. These templates should not be used, however, to mark articles on subjects or persons in the news. If they were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have such a template, without any significant advantage ().
For health- and science-related breaking-news, Wikipedia has specific sourcing standards to prevent inaccuracies: see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) § Respect secondary sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Scholarship. On the Media cautions consumers to be wary of news reports describing early science and medical breakthroughs,[20] especially those which do not interview independent experts (often solely based on unreliable press releases), to prefer reports which avoid hyperbolic language and describe both benefits and costs of a new treatment (all treatments have trade-offs), to be wary of disease mongering (exaggerating risks, symptoms, or anecdotes of a disease which leads to unnecessary worry, panic, or spending), and to be skeptical of treatments which are "awaiting FDA approval
" or in pre-clinical testing" as more than 90% of all treatments fail during these stages and,[21] even if efficacious, may be 10 to 15 years or more from reaching the consumer market.[22]
News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.
A number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so. Deprecation happens through a request for comment, usually at the reliable sources noticeboard. It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues (e.g. promoting unfounded conspiracy theories), usually when there are large numbers of references to the source giving rise to concerns about the integrity of information in the encyclopedia.
A deprecated source should not be used to support factual claims. While there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something, these are rarely appropriate outside articles on the source itself. In general articles, commentary on a deprecated source's opinion should be drawn from independent secondary sources. Including a claim or statement by a deprecated source that is not covered by reliable sources risks giving undue weight to a fringe view.
Some sources are blacklisted, and can not be used at all. Blacklisting is generally reserved for sources which are added abusively, such as state-sponsored fake news sites with a history of addition by troll farms. Specific blacklisted sources can be locally whitelisted; see Wikipedia:Blacklist for other details about blacklisting.
Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup/Verifiability and sources lists many templates, including
Debbie Nathan
también documenta una conexión entre Schreiber y Terry Morris, un "pionero" de este género [de interés humano] que admitió libremente haberse tomado "considerables licencias con los hechos que se me presentan".